Rating is difficult one Richard. There are some excellent bloggers who only post occasionally and have a very loyal following, yet they are hard to find because they don't achieve high visitor numbers, plus they have no real desire to promote themselves.
I dislike Iain Dale's idea of bloggers voting for each because it's open to abuse. Like it or not there are cliques in the blogosphere and they tend to distort results.
Bloggers who encourage debate should be credited in some way, but I would say that wouldn't I?
Although it's enjoyable responding to individual comments, it is time consuming and I notice many more are now interacting with their readers. About time too. I've given up commenting on blogs when it's never acknowledged even with a 'Thanks'.
Can you explain the 'star system' please? Rather confused here but that's nothing unusual.
I've now added a bit to the post, as follows: Frequency seems easiest to rank, say: five stars for multiple entries per day; four stars for at least five daily entries in a week; three stars for at least weekly; two stars for at least monthly, and one star for less frequent.
You could thus have a ranking (as a very tentative idea) that looked like this:
Specialism: ACKX (random - the letters have no meaning in this example)
Writing could be hellish difficult to judge on a subjective level, but there are simple, technical issues that could possibly be addressed, such as spelling, paragraph length ... and even readability (Fog Index).
This is all very tentative ... I'm not absolutely sure it is a good idea ... herding cats, etc ... but I am impressed by the good quality of writing out there, which is not recognised, while the claque
gets all the attention. Whatever else, it must be bottom-up ... a co-operative, self managed, rather than a top-down, ego-driven Dale-type operation.